In “The Antichrist”, Nietzsche sets out to denounce and illegitimize not only Christianity itself as a belief and a practice, but also the ethical-moral value system which modern western civilization has inherited from it. This writing can be considered a further development of some of his ideas concerning Christianity that can be found in Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, particularly the idea that the present morality is an inversion of true, noble morality. One of the most important of these ideas is that Christianity has made people nihilistic and weak by regarding pity and related
Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
This is because the ruling class only want to benefit their own selfish causes. Thrasymachus is referring to the notion that the weaker class is exploited constantly by the stronger class; laws are put into place to benefit the selfish and greedy. However, as Thrasymachus continues to deliberate what justice is, he agrees that what is right can not always be just. As rulers also make mistakes, act out of emotion, and could put laws in place which can be harmful to those it should protect. Thrasymachus agrees with Socrates’ conclusion that a ruler does not exercise his authority with his own interest but
He continues his claim that the works of well-known authors such as Shakespeare and Hemingway should be banned from American Culture. Tony Alamo’s belief to use censorship as a shield and tool to protect young minds from disintegrating exhibits narrow-mindedness. The first reason Tony Alamo exhibits narrow-mindedness because he states, “Children and young adults in their innocence, often cannot distinguish between good, morally upright concepts and morally unjustified, wrong perverted ideas” (Alamo). What Mr. Alamo is implying is that children and young individuals are not intelligent and can’t make a distinction between good and bad choices. Mr. Alamo needs to understand that children’s brains are like sponges soaking up water.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.
Freud explained that the mind was divided into three areas; the ‘ID’ where our base instincts are such as desire and appetite, the ‘Ego’ a part of our mind that is shaped by external influences and the ‘Superego’ a part of the ego that is shaped by the influences that have affected our development such as parents and teachers. He believed that our conscience was the result of our social conditioning or socialisation thus all moral values are subjective. However, the argument for God is also largely supported, although the argument does not suggest that there must be a God, but rather that God is needed for morality to achieve its end. Cardinal Newman agreed with Kant that the existence of
Not that life is bad, but that the physical pleasures and physical reality are less than divine. The best conditions include those that are free from distraction. While the ascetic priest is essentially denying life, he is actually preserving the life that he cherishes so much. The ascetic priest desires power and believes that “this life is an illusion”. Nietzsche says, in his second essay, the primary objection to ascetic ideals is that ascetic priests must deny the value of this life; he portrays it as a link to the next life, rather than appreciating life as an end in itself.
Immorality therefore is the violation of such law. Kant goes on to argue that the morality of any action can be seen, not by the desired consequences, but by the motive behind the action. Basically, Kant believes that we should act because of the motive not because we see the end results of the action. Consequences of an act are, for the most part, irrelevant to morality; we can control the motives but not control the results. Motives then can be measured by whether or not they can be turned into a universal maxim.
The intentions or motives for an action must be just in order for the action to be just. Kantian ethics are also absolute, therefore the morality of an action has nothing to do in the circumstances which it occurred in. Kant’s theory is therefore prohibitive as actions are either right or wrong in whatever situation they happen in, and as such, the punishment must be the same for all occurrences of that particular action. Therefore, by saying lying is wrong, even if you lie to a thug who has asked you to tell him which direction person X went so that they could kill them; to Kant it would still be wrong, because lying can never be justified. Kant also believed in humans’ innate moral duty.